Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Fasoli, F.
Data de Publicação: 2023
Outros Autores: Maass, A., Berghella, L.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/27920
Resumo: Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people are supposed to be better at gaydar than heterosexual. Across two studies we examined auditory gaydar performed by LGB and heterosexual listeners. In Study 1 participants (n = 127) listened to male and female speakers (n = 10) and judged their sexual orientation on a binary choice (gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual). In Study 2, participants (n = 192) judged speakers’ (n = 31) sexual orientation on a Kinsey-like scale (1 = exclusively heterosexual, 7 = exclusively gay/lesbian). Results showed gaydar judgments differences in relative terms that did not indicate an overall gaydar accuracy. Moreover, LGB participants were not better at gaydar than heterosexual participants but rather showed a shift in criterion when making auditory gaydar judgments, namely they report a weaker straight categorization bias. Overall, these findings contribute to the understanding of sexual orientation categorization among heterosexual majority and LGB minority groups.
id RCAP_886e4ad585d558effe9efade4c501775
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/27920
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual peopleGaydarVoiceSexual orientationGender typicalityLesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people are supposed to be better at gaydar than heterosexual. Across two studies we examined auditory gaydar performed by LGB and heterosexual listeners. In Study 1 participants (n = 127) listened to male and female speakers (n = 10) and judged their sexual orientation on a binary choice (gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual). In Study 2, participants (n = 192) judged speakers’ (n = 31) sexual orientation on a Kinsey-like scale (1 = exclusively heterosexual, 7 = exclusively gay/lesbian). Results showed gaydar judgments differences in relative terms that did not indicate an overall gaydar accuracy. Moreover, LGB participants were not better at gaydar than heterosexual participants but rather showed a shift in criterion when making auditory gaydar judgments, namely they report a weaker straight categorization bias. Overall, these findings contribute to the understanding of sexual orientation categorization among heterosexual majority and LGB minority groups.Routledge/Taylor and Francis2023-02-15T13:24:41Z2023-01-01T00:00:00Z20232023-04-03T09:52:40Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10071/27920eng0091-836910.1080/00918369.2021.2004796Fasoli, F.Maass, A.Berghella, L.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-09T17:45:14Zoai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/27920Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:21:35.705383Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
title Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
spellingShingle Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
Fasoli, F.
Gaydar
Voice
Sexual orientation
Gender typicality
title_short Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
title_full Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
title_fullStr Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
title_full_unstemmed Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
title_sort Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual and lesbian, gay and bisexual people
author Fasoli, F.
author_facet Fasoli, F.
Maass, A.
Berghella, L.
author_role author
author2 Maass, A.
Berghella, L.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Fasoli, F.
Maass, A.
Berghella, L.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Gaydar
Voice
Sexual orientation
Gender typicality
topic Gaydar
Voice
Sexual orientation
Gender typicality
description Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people are supposed to be better at gaydar than heterosexual. Across two studies we examined auditory gaydar performed by LGB and heterosexual listeners. In Study 1 participants (n = 127) listened to male and female speakers (n = 10) and judged their sexual orientation on a binary choice (gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual). In Study 2, participants (n = 192) judged speakers’ (n = 31) sexual orientation on a Kinsey-like scale (1 = exclusively heterosexual, 7 = exclusively gay/lesbian). Results showed gaydar judgments differences in relative terms that did not indicate an overall gaydar accuracy. Moreover, LGB participants were not better at gaydar than heterosexual participants but rather showed a shift in criterion when making auditory gaydar judgments, namely they report a weaker straight categorization bias. Overall, these findings contribute to the understanding of sexual orientation categorization among heterosexual majority and LGB minority groups.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023-02-15T13:24:41Z
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
2023
2023-04-03T09:52:40Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10071/27920
url http://hdl.handle.net/10071/27920
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 0091-8369
10.1080/00918369.2021.2004796
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Routledge/Taylor and Francis
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Routledge/Taylor and Francis
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799134777292357632